Skip to main content

Utensils are to obesity what guns are to gun violence... Uh-huh...

I don't know if this is a new thing sweeping across conservative sites, but last night, I read a Facebook status from someone which said this:

"Stepped on the scale the other day...noticed I gained some weight. I was looking for someone/thing to blame and decided it is clearly the fault of the eating utensils in my home....just as the violence our nation is blamed on guns. Please support me as I attempt to pass legislation that will ban forks and spoons (or at least limit who has access to them) to help cure our country's obesity problem..."

Cute, isn't it? The individual is attempting to compare the link between guns and gun violence to the link between utensils and obesity. Forks and spoons are simply the tools we use to eat food, which can lead to obesity, just like a gun is the tool which can lead to gun violence. While the analogy is a nice try in a series of such attempts, it fails on multiple levels.

One problem with it, is like I illustrated in my response to the post, where I wrote: "Since utensils aren't (typically) used when consuming some of the fattiest of foods, would legislation then be needed to ban people's hands? How would that work exactly? ...and what if they were without hands to begin with? Would we then need to ban the hands of those feeding them?"

Humorously enough, the author "liked" this post of mine and nobody commented afterward. I'm thinking he missed the point of my response. He simply thought I was joking, but that wasn't the case.

He linked utensils to obesity and compared it to the link between guns and gun violence. In many cases, one doesn't use utensils to eat the fattiest of foods which can thereby lead to obesity. Burgers, french fries, onion rings, pizza, chicken fingers, cookies, candy, brownies, bacon, ribs, chicken wings, doughnuts - need I continue? Therefore, his utensils comparison is a pretty big failure to begin with. I see what he was trying to do with the analogy, but in a good majority of cases, it doesn't work.

It also fails on another level. Let's think about this for a moment. Comparing forks and spoons to guns, unhealthy food to bullets, and obesity to gun-related deaths, is a bigger stretch than I've seen from any Olympic gymnast. Spoons have multiple potential functions - not all related to eating bad food. Forks tend to be more singular in their functions, but I'm sure if I thought of it creatively enough, they could serve purposes outside the dining room table. What is the sole function of a gun? To shoot it. As far as I know, it's not going to be used as a pillow, a writing utensil, a midnight snack, etc. It's function is to shoot and either harm or kill its intended target - whether that be a person or an animal. So the first portion of the three-part analogy fails miserably. The second portion is slightly more tolerable, as both unhealthy food and bullets can lead to one's ultimate demise. However, even that's stretching things quite a bit. It typically takes years of unhealthy eating habits to kill a person, whereas a single bullet can pierce one's chest or head and end their life before they've had a chance to even blink. Therefore, the second part of the analogy fails, but not quite as much as the first part. The third part of the analogy is probably the most tolerable, as it compares obesity to gun-related deaths. Obesity is a serious problem, which can end in an individual's passing, just like with gun-related deaths. However, even with a person being obese, this does not make it inevitable they will perish quickly from it, or perish at all due to it, unlike gun-related deaths, when the person is 100% certain to be dead. So, while this third portion of the analogy I find to be the most tolerable of the three, like the other two, I feel it falls short in the end.

I'm getting both entertained by and frustrated with all these insane comparisons I keep reading and hearing about from far-right gun rights activists. Often times, it seems as if they genuinely believe they're being clever with these comparisons. Hammers, knives, forks and spoons, etc. The list seems to grow by the second, and I both can and can't wait to hear the next asinine comparison. I'm preparing myself with laughter and a massive facepalm, as usual.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"